But as we were to find out, the rant we were about to read confirmed to us what we have found wanting in the councilman’s office — competence, follow-through and, now, an insulting attitude toward the media.
The screed was in reaction to our August 7 post “Eating Trammell Crow?” which quoted Smith’s chief planning director, Phyllis Winger. She was talking to environmental activist Bill Bowling of the Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education in Chatsworth-Lake Manor, during a council meeting in the Van Nuys city hall annex for the city of Los Angeles.
Bowling and Winger were discussing the city council’s 12-0 vote to okay the green-lighting of the Corporate Pointe at West Hills project that was the subject of my March 5 LA Weekly article “The Valley’s Galaxy of Goo – City planners make a slick zone change for easy building on toxic lands.”
Bowling had asked Winger how Smith could possibly believe that the site was safe for further development without an Environmental Impact Report along with re-zoning to a category that allows more contamination to be acceptable onsite.
Winger’s response was clear and unambiguous: “Councilmember Smith feels that if the property was unsafe that the [Department of Toxic Substances Control] would have told him so.”
But apparently our use of Bowling’s quote wasn’t good enough for a prominent staff member from Councilman Smith’s office who wrote:
Dear Mr. Collins – without getting into the content of your story, I’d like to point out to you that your quote from Ms. Winger on our staff was so badly twisted out of context that it is utterly meaningless.
You said you left messages but we didn’t return your phone calls before posting. In about 5 seconds, you could have google searched “Greig Smith” + press release and you would have found my cell phone number on any of our 50 press releases on our website. I suggest you try that before you publish on your blog that “We called Smith’s office to confirm the quote but received no callback before posting.” Try next time putting a wee bit more effort into that. Thanks. [Name and title redacted]
We were surprised by this because Winger certainly spoke her mind and was unambiguous in addressing Bowling, who immediately wrote down what she said, verbatim, and called EnviroReporter.com.
Naturally, we responded to Councilman Smith’s aide:
How is the quote “Councilmember Smith feels that if the property was unsafe that the [Department of Toxic Substances Control] would have told him so” from Ms. Winger taken “so badly twisted out of context that it is utterly meaningless”?
Not only is that a legitimate and abundantly clear quote, sourced from the founder of the Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education which has received numerous government citations for excellence and for being of service to the community; it directly addressed the issue at hand. Are you suggesting that your staff can’t speak for itself? Ms. Winger certainly was precise in her statement which needed no elaboration, as far as we can tell.
However, if in your role as communications director for Councilmember Smith you feel you can address this issue better than your chief planning director, I invite you to explain the reason(s) Councilmember Smith voted to approve this project with no Environmental Impact Report and with a zoning change that allow higher levels of contamination at the site.
We will post this thread of communication, along with your verbatim comments and answers, to give the readers, many of which are residents in Councilman Smith’s district where Corporate Pointe at West Hills is located, the full story.
Questions:
1. How was Ms. Winger’s statement that “Councilmember Smith feels that if the property was unsafe that the [Department of Toxic Substances Control] would have told him so” somehow “so badly twisted out of context that it is utterly meaningless”?
2. If this statement was inaccurate, or unclear, could you please clarify it?
3. Could your office explain why Councilmember Smith supported this project without an Environmental Impact Report and a zoning change that allows for higher levels of contamination at the site?
4. Could you explain why your office did not respond to the concerns of residents when our first article on this issue appeared in LA Weekly‘s “The Valley’s Galaxy of Goo – City planners make a slick zone change for easy building on toxic lands” such as in a communication to the paper?
5. Did your office inspect the information in support of this article on EnviroReporter.com available at https://www.enviroreporter.com/investigations/corporate-pointe/?
6. If so, what was your evaluation of this information, specifically?
7. According to Bowling and museum partner Christina Walsh, prior to the August 7 vote, your staff had been invited to visit the Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education in Chatsworth-Lake Manor to learn more about contamination at the Corporate Pointe at West Hills. Bowling and Walsh tell EnviroReporter.com that no one from your office has ever visited this facility. Could you explain why?
8. When this matter came to a vote August 7, there was no discussion among the councilmembers about this matter. Can you explain why?
9. Is your office comfortable that the sewer systems at the site have never been inspected for contamination?
10. Is your office comfortable that the vote on this project was taken before Raytheon completed its radiological survey of the groundwater that it will report to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board?
My “journalistic practices” are well known. They are aimed at ferreting out the truth backed by fact. My readers expect this. That is why we are glad to provide you the opportunity to address these issues that are of concern to people living within or adjacent to your district.
We look forward to your reply as soon as possible.
Michael Collins
EnviroReporter.comcc: Denise Anne Duffield, EnviroReporter.com
So did we hear back from the piqued councilman’s aide? Nope. Would this aide have gotten back to us on a Friday afternoon, or even at all. Probably not. Did Bill Bowling, a longtime source and president of the Malibu Association of Realtors, get the quote wrong? No. Was there anything this aide could add? Doubtful.
Does the councilman have a comprehensive understanding on the environmental realities surrounding the development of a former aerospace and nuclear research site that is polluted with radiation, heavy metals and chemicals? Well, his vote answered that question.
We wish Councilman Greig Smith and his staff would have put “a wee bit more effort” into looking at the mountains of information about the Corporate Pointe at West Hills site that LA Weekly, EnviroReporter.com and the Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education have provided our readers and the public at large.
Dear EnviroReporter,
In regards to the Corporate Pointe at West Hills (CPWH) proposed development site please click on this link to read some of the data ACME collected http://acmela.org/atomicsinternational.html in addition all the ACME and CleanupRocketdyne letters on this subject can be found on this page http://acmela.org/acmepages.html
On Monday, December 8, 2008 Trammell Crow scientists assured that there are various agencies, such as DTSC, who will oversee the environmental concerns “they will be the checks and balance”. The record shows that between 2006 and 2007, a below grade parking lot was built with a building permit only. DTSC was not contacted. DTSC did not oversee the removal and disposal of possibly contaminated soil.
This is a major concern as the historical data of this site and its operations are incomplete.
ACME has repeatedly requested to obtain and study more Historical Data from Thompson Ramo Woolridge (TRW) – A.K.A. Space Technology Laboratory, A.K.A. Bunker Ramo – who were the original occupants of this site. In the current references of Historical Data provided by Trammell Crow, Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) and Raytheon (Formerly Hughes) it’s as if only Hughes Missile Systems was looked into. This site was also LEASED by Atomics International, yet only the property owners’ historical records were looked into. The Boeing Co. to this day leases several thousand square feet of space in the referenced complex and it is unknown what their operations are. All of these requests were cc’d to Councilmember Smith.
Atomics International (AI) a division of Rocketdyne, leased space from Thompson Ramo Woolridge (TRW), the original owners of the CPWH. We have requested the operational records be obtained along with lists of radioisotopes used and in what building.
In the book “Rocketdyne – Thirty-Five Years in Power for America” published in 1990, Under an AI section on page 40 it states “facilities were also leased from Thompson Ramo Woolridge in its complex at Fallbrook Avenue and Roscoe Boulevard. The leased facilities housed the division’s Research Department, along with part of the engineering and power reactor development departments.”
This proves the fact we are dealing with a nuclear issue and the results from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) letter on October 21, 2008 to Mr. Daniel Samorano of Raytheon could possibly be contamination from AI and are not to be taken lightly:
http://www.acmela.org/images/11-19-2008_Radioactivity_at_Hidden_Lake_and_Hughes_Raytheon_ACME_Aerospace_Cancer_Museum_of_Education.pdf
The Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education has received a purchase invoice for Atomics International in Canoga Park with a List of Radionuclides that need to be considered if a Zone Change is enacted [which now it has]. The Current Agricultural Zone requires a higher standard for clean up which is needed at a site that had licenses for Ba-144: http://www.cekert.kth.se/nuclear_power/virtual/nobel_showcase/ba144_beta_decay_animation.html
FISSION BY-PRODUCT OF PLUTONIUM: One of the most probable heavy fission fragments of 235U-fission is 144Ba (Barium). 144Ba is not stable, and similarly to its lighter companion 89Kr (Krypton) it beta-decays very fast , through consequentive emissions of electrons and anti-neutrinos to very, very long-lived 144Nd (Neodymium) Ce-144:
http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/summary.tcl?edf_substance_id=14762-78-8
CESIUM-144 (CARCINOGEN): MAP OF CHERNOBYL FALLOUT OF Ce-144: http://nuclear.ntua.gr/apache2-default/radmaps/ce144.html
Cs-137: CESIUM-137 (COMES ALONG WITH STRONTIUM-90 IN SIMILAR AMOUNTS; FALLOUT PRODUCT; POINT OF CONTENTION IN RUNKLE) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesium-137
Co-58: COBALT 58 – SUPER HOT WITH SHORT HALF LIFE; http://www.stanford.edu/dept/EHS/prod/researchlab/radlaser/RSDS_sheets/Co-58.pdf
H-3: tritium (heavy water used at Area IV of the SSFL in significant amounts)
Fe-59: IRON-59; 44.5 DAY HALF-LIFE; Carcinogen; http://jnm.snmjournals.org/cgi/reprint/5/1/40.pdf
Kr-85: KRYPTON-85: HALF LIFE OF 10.7 YEARS; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton-85 – “However, since the mid-1940s, much larger quantities have been artificially produced as a product of nuclear fission.” AND “About 5 million curies of the isotope was released into the atmosphere as a result of nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and the end of atmospheric testing in 1962. The 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant released about 50,000 curies of Kr-85 into the atmosphere and the Chernobyl accident released about 5 million curies. The atmospheric concentration of krypton-85 peaked in around 1970, when it reached around 10 picocuries per [cubic] meter. Since then the cessation of atmospheric weapons tests and the reduced production of plutonium has, because of the short half life of the isotope, led to a sharp reduction in the atmospheric concentration, according to the ANL factsheet. For wide-area atmospheric monitoring, krypton-85 is the best indicator for clandestine plutonium separations. A large nuclear power plant produces about 300,000 curies of the isotope per year, most or all retained in the spent nuclear fuel rods. Nuclear reprocessing currently releases Kr-85 to the atmosphere when the spent fuel is dissolved. It would also be possible to capture and store it as nuclear waste or for use.”
Ag-110: SILVER-110; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PhRvB..69g5408W – FILM COATING FOR AERODYNAMIC SURFACES
Tc-99: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium -“Tc (technetium-99m) is used in nuclear medicine for a wide variety of diagnostic tests. 99Tc is used as a gamma ray-free source of beta particles.”
Zn-65: ZINC-65; HALF-LIFE 245 DAYS; CARCINEGENIC
Zr-95: Zirconium-95; FOUND IN FALLOUT SO FISSION BY-PRODUCT; CARCINEGIN;
SI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon AND http://www.webelements.com/silicon/
EPA’s Regional Water Board was ordered to do quarterly monitoring of the rads–They didn’t– and in fact all mention of radiological findings were never mentioned again in the last ten years. EPA’s Department of Toxic Substance Control walked away from the project ten years ago and the owners developed and graded at will with no oversight. DTSC later told Community Members that they were understaffed.
Recently a parking garage was built over an “Area of Concern” and a monitoring well was buried. The neighborhood was covered with dirt and dust for over a year. The neighboring community of Hidden Lake has groundwater contamination impacts and there is a lot of concern over the footings necessary for a high-rise building because of the shallow groundwater throughout the property.
This is a TRW timeline of ownership. http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/TRW%20History-rev5.pdf
This document references TRW and the SNAP Reactor from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4015446 Space Technology Laboratories on 8433 Fallbrook Avenue in Canoga Park was in this report distribution list.
This report deals with Cesium 137. I want to know what the Fallbrook facility has contributed to this study. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640020119_1964020119.pdf and this one http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19640015101_1964015101.pdf
This document should be studied and taken into consideration as it is next door to the proposed development of Corporate Pointe at West Hills:
http://www.etec.energy.gov/Health-and-Safety/Documents/RecreationCenter/LLNL_Recreation_Center.pdf
This document subject is Controlled Thermonuclear Research at Bunker-Ramo Canoga: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4447890
This abstract talks about TCE Vapor cleaning at Bunker-Ramo Canoga.
http://www.stormingmedia.us/86/8609/0860936.html
This document states Research at the Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation (later the Bunker-Ramo Corporation and part of the Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge group) in Canoga Park, California, started in 1955, receiving a grant for an initial study from the US Air Force in March 1957. Thus making it under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Former Utilized Defense Sites (FUDS) ruling. As of right now potentially contaminated runoff from this site drains into the L.A. River daily: http://www.hutchinsweb.me.uk/PPF-4.pdf
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ recent interest in downgrading the Los Angeles River has raised the question, “How much do they know about what was released into the L.A. River by the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and other adjacent sites to the L.A. River? Over 80% of the SSFL drains into Bell Creek, the headwaters of the Los Angeles River. Corporate Pointe at West Hills is in the Chatsworth Creek watershed that drains into the L.A River. Rocketdyne Canoga, and it’s watershed, drain into the L.A River. The Nike Missile Base at Oat Mountain impacts the Browns Canyon Watershed and drains into the L.A River. The Marquardt Missile Facility, and it’s watershed, drain into the L.A River.
The Hughes facility received the KR-85 or Krypton-85. Produced in small quantities by the interaction of cosmic rays with the stable krypton-84 (which is present in concentrations of about 1 cm3 per cubic meter). However, since the mid-1940s, much larger quantities have been artificially produced as a product of nuclear fission. Was it the Fallbrook Canoga Park site where this work was done? See page 11th of this document: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/6833738-t5u5Rg/6833738.PDF
The Explorer 6 was developed at the CPWH site. What were the impacts?
http://collections.nasm.si.edu/code/emuseum.asp?profile=objects&newstyle=single&quicksearch=A19640667000
Prior agreements were not handled properly between regulatory agencies and the developer/owners of the site. We need a whole new Environmental Study before any type of development is brought forth.
The disturbance of soil during development if not properly contained for what it is will affect the health and potentially exposure highly toxic pollutants from prior operations at the site which have not been adequately mitigated, or characterized. This includes a known Trichloroethylene (TCE) plume below with the groundwater extremely shallow may result with indoor vapor intrusion which is a proven exposure pathway. This goes the same for surface water contamination. The plume of TCE has been ignored despite the many serious concerns communicated by the local residents. Another Area of Concern (AOC) is in the Lower portion Parking area, or Southeast Corner Parking.
In past reports attached to this property there is a significant list of Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) and AOCs that require further characterization because they were never adequately completed. Those areas include, but are not limited to the following:
SWMUs: Buildings 272, 282, Pits 1 and 2 at building 269, parking area between buildings 274 and 276, cooling unit at northeast corner outside building 274, the former underground tank systems T1 and T2, the pump islands between Buildings 272 and 282, and the sewerline running from the site.
AOCs: Buildings 263,265, 268, 269, 270,271,274, 276, 281, and Tanks T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T14. Any effort to remove AOCs or SWMUs by the polluter is inappropriate, especially by way of discounting relevant data demonstrating significant impacts of TCE and DCE [a toxic TCE breakdown chemical].
Groundwater Vapor Intrusion into the new buildings need to be considered.
The plating and clarifying pits indicate uses of other chemicals that are not adequately sampled for such as cyanide, chromic acid, and methylene chloride.
There are repeated concerns of the feeder sewer lines which will be impacted by the current plans by the developer. Any effort to remove this from the AOC process would be to misrepresent the potential risks to the public.
Treatment of former concrete as hazardous waste is an indicator that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) process is inadequate for the complex historical operations of the site. This emphasized the necessity to understand all former operational activities of the site from Raytheon, Hughes Missile Systems as well as Bunker Ramo, TRW and Atomics International.
The proposed [but now struck-down] Market on the Southeast Corner of the Trammell Crow Property has tested high in the past for Radiation. They did not adequately demonstrate that the radiological findings were based on naturally occurring radioisotopes and all the analyses done should be compared to new background standards from the Background Study currently underway by USEPA based on HR2764 and USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) should be used for comparison.
In addition we need to take in consideration the findings of cesium 137 on Rocketdyne Employees Fitness Center Property next door.
[Even though the zoning change passed, please note the following comments]:
1. Pursuant to section 11.5.6 of the Municipal code, a General Plan Amendment to the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan From Minimum Density Residential TO Limited Manufacturing Land use. 2. Zone change request from A1-1 to M1-1 3. Conditional use permit CUP because their request DOES NOT COMPLY with the current restrictions of hours 7am-11pm and exterior walls consisting of at least 50% windows 4. Site Plan Review Approval for a project that will result in more than 50,000 more non-residential floor area (they are asking for 200,000).
This community plan change is needed for them because otherwise, their project is in violation of the Community Plan. We need to think about why, and what they are asking for, and what the ramifications are for the next developer or what they might do down the line. It is of great concern and nobody seems to know. The request to change the General Community Plan designation for Chatsworth/Porter Ranch to “Light Industrial” from “low density residential” is a significant designation change that will be permanent and will lower the expectation of residential “quality of life” for the entire community.
It’s just like when they said, “we want manufacturing zoning even though we don’t want to manufacture.” It’s not honest and we need to understand the reasons in detail before we allow a change like this. The property owners are said to be adding 200,000 sq ft of non-residential and we all need to clearly understand that just because they build something, doesn’t mean it will be filled with jobs.
Companies are not expanding; they are downsizing and they already have a building they can’t fill and it’s not because of zoning!!!
But, let us focus on Health Issues. Cleanup to be sure, is done to the “intended land use” so no matter what happens, it hasn’t been a corn field for a long time. However, the zoning will trigger the action levels in sampling and step-outs which can mean that under one scenario, a detect will trigger more work, more characterization, whereas in the other, it might not get the same attention. While it is a science, it is a much softer science with politics and regulations triggering key decision points as opposed to the science standing on its own. It is extremely important to remember that zoning dictates land use and this change will allow for future manufacturing and a much lesser degree of interpreted need for protection.
We need to all remember how many times this place has turned over, redeveloped, ALL under the radar. The fact that the prior building of a parking lot and ignoring the “Q” conditions set forth, are profoundly important to be reiterated because it illustrates very clearly that a re-zone with Q conditions do not adequately protect the public when someone “bends” the rules.
If they say they want to build a corporate park, then they should be asking for corporate zoning, not manufacturing. Their reasoning from the start for the zone change is that the city “doesn’t like Q conditions and variances and wants uniformity” but this is a change with an immediate Q to undo the manufacturing part of the manufacturing zoning designation.
We now know FOR A FACT that Atomics International used this location, and that has not been readily made available to the public despite months of expressed concerns for this…is HUGE and it illustrates that there are even more unanswered questions than we even realized.
Let’s look at something else… Tank T-3 was a large waste storage unit on the border of the Reservoir that leaked. It was licensed under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act or RCRA and was supposed to have RCRA oversight over closure. They didn’t close the tank legally. This may be the area where 5 acres of soil was removed and back-filled with concrete. Raytheon has to do it over, and we are still waiting.
With all the information we have gathered about records being destroyed because of Radiological Contamination we must assume that the above elements were used at the Fallbrook and Roscoe Facilities and before any approvals or revisions to the Zone, General Plan, Site Plan Review, CUP or any potential to disturb soil or groundwater is to be at highest priority.
We need to fully understand the past operations of the above referenced site in order to remedy the Areas of Concern before any approvals or revisions to the Zone, General Plan, Site Plan Review, CUP or any potential to disturb soil or groundwater is implemented. The Planning Department needs to overturn their decision and reduce the risks of Cancer in the San Fernando Valley.
[EnviroReporter.com note – Bowling and ACME are aware of the Los Angeles City Council vote to approve the Corporate Pointe at West Hills project with the zoning change and no Environmental Impact Report as noted in the post]
William Preston Bowling Founder/Director
ACME (Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education)
williamprestonbowling@yahoo.com
310.428.5085
http://www.ACMEla.org
23350 Lake Manor Drive
Chatsworth, California
91311
Greetings from Eugene, Oregon, where I sit on a 2-hour layover at an airport that consists of four tuff-sheds and a wind sock. But bless the powers that be, THEY GOT WIFI.
“…the DTSC would have told him so.”
Really? And, if exposures to radiation and toxic chemicals used at SSFL were dangerous, someone would have said something, alerted the community, or told the workers. Right?
The assumption for decades was that someone somewhere would take the responsibility and be ethically motivated to share their knowledge of DANGER, if it were present. Nobody did. Look at the mess we are in today, due to the misguided assumption that “someone would say something” if a risk exists. FYI, the reason I’m sitting here in Eugene is because it was the best flight I could get last minute to Portland, to see my father whose days are numbered due to the radiological cancer he has, courtesy of SSFL and his faith that someone, somewhere, would tell him if he were in harm’s way.
Councilman Smith, it seems you are prepared to take reckless liberty with the lives of your constituents, basing your decision to support this development on an assumption that is eerily similar (and possibly as tragically shortsighted) as those made in the past. Your dedication and loyalty to our community will be made clear by your actions; whether you decide to KNOW FOR SURE or to base your support of this development on an assumption of safety, the action will speak volumes to your community.
There is power in knowledge.
D’Lanie Blaze
TheAeroSpace.org
Oh well, all of you fuss budgets, who needed to wait around for a report from the Department of Toxic Substance Control or Raytheon, anyway? Just let a lot more people start working 8 hours or more a day in Corporate Pointe, and you will have some really great human guinea pigs. If and when some of them come down with Cancer, then you can get worried and find some time to read the belated testing reports….. then…and only then.
Meanwhile, if you get a bad report from Raytheon or DTSC in a month or two, what then? I guess if you are absolutely determined to make rush decisions for political or money reasons, you will just have to live with the eventual and predictable law suits that will be filed.
That’s it! If you insist on making important business decisions backward, an extremely costly cancer law suit or two will undoubtedly get your attention. Hopefully, you will create an item in your management budget to cover collateral damage.
Ms. Winger’s quote… “Councilmember Smith feels that if the property was unsafe that the DTSC would have told him so” Is true, I will call her today and see how she responds. So Councilmember Smith feels it is safe? Obvious, he voted for the project. So knowing that, does her quote validate his actions? We need to know more about the contamination at Corporate Pointe at West Hills before any development is put forth. We do not need any more Cancers in the San Fernando Valley. From the moment we found out about this we had resistance and now Public Health and Safety will suffer.
William Preston Bowling
Founder/Director
Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education ACME
23350 Lake Manor Drive
Chatsworth, California 91311
http://www.ACMELA.org
Here’s the thing: if the item was on the agenda, and MANY concerned community members attended the City Council meeting in order to speak out on their concerns about this project, and they all filled out speaker cards, but when it came time, the announcement from Council was “we will not be hearing comments on this item” and everyone voted, but all the people who showed up to speak against the project were not allowed to do so.
So the agenda item (#2) came up, they did vote, but all the people who showed up to participate in that process, were not allowed to.
OUT OF CONTEXT??? We were left out of context, out of the process, and out in the cold.
WHY?
How can we twist that so out of context that it is utterly meaningless? I think they already did, by refusing to allow the public to weigh in. Isn’t that the point of it bring brought forth as an agenda item through City Council so that those concerns could be heard? What? They didn’t want to hear people’s concerns?
We were assured that the other communities affected by this zone change would be informed of it. That is what Mr. Glick [City Planning] told us months ago when we met with him. I do not believe that Porter Ranch or Chatsworth was made aware of this change. Chatsworth and Porter Ranch have been re-zoned as light industrial now. Isn’t that a change that they should be aware of, and have a say in? What does that do to the value of the homes in Porter Ranch or Chatsworth? Maybe nothing, if you don’t tell anybody…but is that really how this will work and impact those communities in the future? Aren’t those communities now all set for other projects to just come in and build factories or whatever they need now? It’s an industrial community now, so here come the jobs!
Mr. Smith knows that the ball was dropped on this project by both RWQCB and DTSC for many years, and as the councilman of project, what does that say? We asked for his position many times and were only told, “the councilman is watching the project.” We met with the project manager at DTSC who told us that they were not at all satisfied with the investigation so far, and never used the words, “don’t worry, it’s safe” with us. Watching the project? Watching to do what? To exclude the public from this decision?
I guess he felt that because Winger met with a few individuals and gave them assurances that their concerns (about visual issues addressed by landscaping and putting in a wall to block the view) would be addressed, they feel that’s the same as dealing with the public. It is not. Those individuals only represented their own specific issues, not those of the surrounding communities affected. Anyone concerned with the contamination, was not given that opportunity. Best to wait for the hearing….oh wait, we were shut down at the hearing.
Since we KNOW that the site was not adequately investigated, and from the many letters of frustration by DTSC to the “responsible parties”, that remains to be the case, it seems beyond comprehension that Mr. Smith would state that DTSC’s lacking claim of contamination was because it was clean. It wasn’t because it was clean, it was because there was not adequate sampling done to make such a determination. That is not an adequate reason to state that DTSC says it is clean. They did not. That is “twisted, making it utterly meaningless.”
Considering how badly this project has been handled, it is no wonder that Councilman Smith is on the defensive. Best to stay there, because we are not done, and we EXPECT more data, more sampling, and more clean-up, to fill the many gaps that have been inadequately handled. The groundwater plume from TCE and it’s breakdown daughter products is not gone, and not adequately characterized. It extends beyond the property in several directions and requires remediation in the reservoir, Hidden Lake, and we expect this to be dealt with, not covered up in the name of “adding jobs to the area.”
We will be having an event at the museum on 8/28 – History of the test stands, where people can come and learn about the programs that took us to the moon, and what needs to be done now because of the environmental cost of those programs.
I hope to see the Councilman there, but won’t be holding my breath.
Personally, I have written many emails to Ms. Winger with no response. On February 11th, her response to me was,
Dear Christina,
Thank you for the information regarding Dayton Canyon. While it was very interesting, when it comes to determining safety in the area, we will continue to rely on the expertise of the regulators to determine what is safe.
Regards,
Phyllis Winger
Chief Planning Deputy
Other than that, I have received NO response to any of our comments submitted to the councilman. It sounds like they don’t want to hear from us, and won’t accept anything we say. Convenient for them, I suppose. I will do the same, because I trust DTSC far more than I trust Council District 12 for anything.
Congrats to you guys you got their “attention”, so just keep the pressure on by whatever means. Its like the old joke. The farmer with the smartest donkey in the world, the donkey that can do anything… So the farmer goes over to his friend and says “hey my donkey can do anything” and the friend says, “naw, dont believe it”. So the farmer says “watch I’ll show ya”. So the farmer goes over and picks up a big ol’ baseball bat and CRACK, slams the donkey over the head. The friend says, “whatcha do that for” and the farmer says, “well hell, I had to get his attention first”… Love the website, keep it up.
It sounds like the councilman’s communication aide is following the old adage, “The best defense is a good offense.” The aide feels free to admonish enviroreporter for not googling his personal cell phone number but sees no reason to provide his boss with any research on an important vote. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.